Boulder is being watched internationally as we attempt to walk the talk of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and real smart grids. When we succeed at shifting to a high level of renewables at a competitive cost, lots of other cities will join us, and we will have a meaningful impact on climate change.

Boulder’s Chamber of Commerce has embraced “innovation,” including in clean energy, as its target for economic development. With this local business involvement, we can deliver the energy services people want without most of the pollution.

Renewable energy sources are becoming cheaper and storage technologies more efficient and cost-effective. So it’s virtually certain that we can be greenhouse gas-free. And when this becomes a requirement, as it will, Boulder will have benefitted by being way ahead of the curve.

Steve Pomerance, Boulder

This letter was published in the Aug. 26 edition.

I liked Vincent Carroll’s column on the high-mindedness of our citizens in Boulder. I now read where the City Council is pressing ahead to build/buy its own utility.

Having worked in the electric biz for more than 25 years, I know the fun they will have in the future. I wish them well.

They are going to learn that generating “carbon free” electricity is just one small part of running your own grid.

Their consultants’ spreadsheet models (loaded with assumptions) never capture the real adventure (and cost) of a substation or line-related wind-storm/ice-storm/snow-storm outage.

And with their undersized and only newly trained work force, the locals can feel good about saving their planet as they shiver in the dark, waiting for their lights to come back on.

Who are they gonna call? Ghostbusters?

Lou Matis, Arvada

This letter was published in the Aug. 26 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Pielke’s weasel words are only true if technology does not advance in the future. Right now, it looks like an analogue to Moore’s Law is happening with solar, so already Roger is obsolete. JUst like all the other hired guns for the carbon industry.

Best,

D

guest

I’d be interested in seeing the information which makes you compare solar to Moore’s law. The latest figures from the US Department of energy on the subsidies per megawatt hour of electricity shows that coal (the main source) gets 64 cents as does oil and gas. In the meantime, solar gets $775.64. That amounts to 121,193 percent more than do our two mainstays. Go ahead and take your electric bill and multiply it by that amount and see what you would be paying.

I think Yogi Berra said it well regarding what you seem to embrace.

“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”

Dano2

Thank you for that hand-flapping and oh-so-dutifully parroting the talking points your employer sends you. Using your Googles on:

Well after reading that, we should have no problems at all by 2020. Solar will not require any subsidies and I will be happy to admit that solar has arrived. But after reading it, I’m confused why we are subsidizing solar to the tune of $775.64 per megawatt hour. Got any ideas of why so much?

Dano2

Right. Your employer doesn’t give you all the facts. Now you look silly.

Got any ideas why fossil still receives tens of billions a year despite making tens of billions in profit a quarter? does your employer feed you talking points on that too?

Best,

D

guest

Because they make a profit and therefore can use tax breaks given to businesses that stay in America. In the meantime, solar and wind don’t make profits so their subsidies come right out of our pockets.

Fossil fuels companies pay the highest taxes of any businesses in the country.

You didn’t answer my question. Why are we subsidizing solar to the tune of $775.64 per megawatt hour if the price of solar is plummeting?

rightwingliberal

Don’t pay attention to Dano2. He is the resident troll. He, in his own mind, is always right, even when he is wrong.

ChrisInDenver

Don’t confuse him with basic economics. Stick with snarky one-liners.

Dano2

I’m quite sure I’ve had much more Uni-level econ than you.

Jus’ sayin, bro.

Best,

D

guest

How many times did you have to retake that class?

Dano2

Your misleading question was designed to dishonestly dissemble away from the fact that mature, highly profitable carbon receives exponentially more free money than the developing renewable

HTH.

Best,

D

guest

Let’s see. Solar produces 0% of our electricity while wind produces 2.4%. Overall renewable produce about 10% but most of that is hydroelectric. Exponentially more? Care to share the numbers?

If carbon received its share based on what it produces it would get 80+ percent. According to CNN no only do carbon based fuels not get exponentially more that actually get less.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support,according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.”

IBXNJ

Solar power projects have been in the works for over 45 years and are STILL far from cost effective.

Dano2

Solar produces 0% of our electricity

False. And Solar installed 48% of new generation in 2013 Q1

wind produces 2.4%.

False. Tell your employer to give you some new numbers to parrot!

Exponentially more? Care to share the numbers?

I’m sure yours are better than mine. Why don’t you break them down? Go back a couple years while you’re at it!

Best,

D

guest

So, False, with no numbers and no reference to back them up if you had numbers. Could you be a bit more specific? (I’m assuming you could or you couldn’t say false).

I know that solar installed 48% of the new generation in 2013 Q1, but was that rated power or 18% of that which is what you can expect to generate? We both know the answer to that and we also know why you don’t give any specifics.

As for fossil fuels vs renewables subsidies, world wide you have about 8 to 1 ratio. But in the good old USA, we are not only giving them more money, but we are putting requirements that we use ethanol with gasoline and we are requiring utilities to use renewables so that is an invisible subsidy.

IBXNJ

The ethanol requirements are making food more expensive!! WORLDWIDE!!!

primafacie

Mr. Pomerance argues that if the goal is admirable, it doesn’t matter if you reach it. Then in the next breath, says it’ll be reached just because you wish real hard.

The result, of course, is the same as if there was no goal, but as long as you feel good about yourself along the way, that’s all that matters.

Tbone

Lou –

Why would you assume the workforce would be newly trained? You seriously think that when a new utility starts, that no one there knows anything about their jobs? What, you think that they didn’t talk to anyone about starting a utility?

If you’re so afraid of a new utility (shiver!!!@!!) stay in Arvada and write stupid little letters referencing a nearly 30 year old movie. Fresh stuff, bro.

Yes, it’s true. This man has no Dick.

jacquesvoorhees

Kudos to Boulder for taking serious steps to address global warming. Their actions have been so effective that we’re now in our (I believe) 17th year with no global warming. Keep up the good work, Boulder!

guest

I have to give the credit to President Obama. He said ” I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to
look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began
to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the
moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to
heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation
and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth”

I read today that President Obama has had the least number of hurricanes hit the mainland USA than any previous President (3 vs Grover Cleveland who saw 26). Now since we know that hurricanes were going to be more numerous, this must tell us President Obama has kept his promise and the planet is healing. Hallelujah!

jacquesvoorhees

Yep, with Obama’s reduction in hurricanes, and keeping the sea levels under control, and Boulder’s renewable energy standard having brought global warming to a standstill 16 years ago, there’s plenty of cause for celebration. Even the polar bear herds are thriving in record numbers. No one can say these folks haven’t delivered.

Dano2

That’s some real low-quality talking point gibberish right there!

The spammers are out in force now, making the comments unreadable for the sane and reality-based!

Best,

D

ChrisInDenver

Is that comment supposed to be an exception?

guest

The funny part is that DTJ thinks he is in the sane and reality-based group.

guest

Really DTJ? You are accusing others of making comments unreadable? That sounds unMercan. Amirite?

guest

Really DTJ? You are accusing others of making comments unreadable? That sounds unMercan. Amirite?

Dano2

we’re now in our (I believe) 17th year with no global warming.

Who duped you into vomiting this nonsense? Whoever it was is embarrassing you.

We’ve explained this lie with statistics numerous times on this board. I recommend avoiding the websites that lie to you in this way, or at least avoid repeating their embarrassing talking points.

Best,

D

guest

Come on DTJ, everyone is admitting that truth. They have a lot of excuses as to why there’s been this “pause”, but there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming in 17-23 years. Some of the possibilities include the ocean ate the heat, volcanoes are to blame, China’s pollution is doing it, or the prolonged lull in solar activity is to blame. The one I back is either Earth might in fact be less
sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously believed or there are other natural factors climate science hasn’t figured out yet or a combination of these two.

Quite frankly your continual denying of what is actually happening should be embarrassing to you, but evidently you have no shame.

Dano2

Thank you for mendaciously repeating this dishonest spam, no matter how many times we explain that your mendacious, dishonest spam is dishonest. And mendacious

Exactly what we expect from dishonest spammers.

Best.

D

guest

All you ever do on this is to call anyone who tells the truth a liar. Not very convincing.

How about in years previous? Any warming then? Or should we just ignore that?

guest

IF you look at the history of the current AGW movement, the temperatures started to increase in the late 1970s. In the late 1980s they started the IPCC because of the warming (10 years). Now we’ve had at least 17 years without statistically significant warming and the people that needed only 10 to declare a disaster now think 17 years isn’t enough time to call it off.

A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds “that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” In other words, the current IPCC and other AGW models are a long shot at best.

The climate is always changing. So we had 20 years of warming which has been followed by 17-23 years of a plateau. The latest I’ve read is Trenberth has said we could have another 20 years of cooling before global warming comes back with a vengeance.

The truth of the matter is we don’t know. The climate system is to complex and we don’t understand any where near enough to be making the kind of projections the warmists are making.

Dano2

4 paragraphs to hide your mendacity on lying with statistics (starting point bias).

Our paper does not represent a crises of the understanding of the climate system, but a wake-up call that scenarios have to be prepared better, and that all impact studies should expect that details of future scenarios concerning speed of change and intensity of natural variability may be described quite differently.

Best,

D

guest

Do you understand what you just posted? Do you know what a wake up call is? Evidently not.

I don’t think you are lying (you love to accuse others of that). I don’t think you are bright enough to understand what you are flapping your gums about.

Dano2

Yes – they disagreed with what you asserted.

But go ahead and be dishonest about the characterization of their findings, a “pause” in warming due to a starting point bias (lying with statistics), and the several other things you regularly type that are dishonest.

And you are the last person to be implying anyone isn’t so bright. Your record on this board of bright writing is, well, dim. Dim lies, dim talking points, dim wit.

Best,

D

guest

No, there study showed the models didn’t work. The fact that they still believe in AGW is just that, a belief. But are we talking about science or belief?

Dano2

Just to be clear: it is either inanity or lying to assert VS et al claimed the models didn’t work.

Best,

D

guest

You are right. They said the models had a 2% likelihood of working. As for lying, you are the person who swore to me that water vapor was not the most significant greenhouse gas.

Dano2

They said the models had a 2% likelihood of working

No they did not.

Best,

D

guest

No response to my comment that you denied water vapor was the most significant greenhouse gas? And yes they did.

Dano2

And yes they did.

Clearly you don’t have the mental capacity to understand what they wrote. They did not assert the models had a 2% likelihood of working.

Clearly you don’t have the mental capacity to understand what was explained to you about WV feedbacks in context of CO2 emissions, or you are being mendacious about the response. You are weakly flailing at a gotcha, and you haven’t the mental capacity to make it happen.

HTH.

Best,

D

Dano2

And yes they did.

Clearly you don’t have the mental capacity to understand what they wrote. They did not assert the models had a 2% likelihood of working.

Clearly you don’t have the mental capacity to understand what was explained to you about WV feedbacks in context of CO2 emissions, or you are being mendacious about the response. You are weakly flailing at a gotcha, and you haven’t the mental capacity to make it happen.

HTH.

Best,

D

Tbone

Dano nailed it. The reason the deniers like to claim there’s been no warming since 1998 is because 98 was an exceptionally hot year.

Cherry picking misunderstood statistics doesn’t help your case.

The truth is, the current warming trend can be traced back to the end of the 19th century. The truth is, we have had warming since 1998, it’s just that the deniers like to dishonestly use 1998 as a baseline, rather than an outlier.

Starting point bias.

guest

There’s been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (2012 minus 17). You need to work on your math.

Tbone

So even after being called out on your mendacious talking points you keep at it.

Great work! Keep it up, there’s a reward.

But, at least you get points for creativity. Usually the usual suspects use 1998 as their talking point. Are you sure you’re reading from the right script?

guest

No they don’t. the normal time frames are 17-23 years (it depends which temperature numbers you use). 1998 was an very warm year, but that isn’t the year that is used when we talk about no statistically significant warming.

I’m reading from the correct script. You are reading from the left wing script.

Dano2

that isn’t the year that is used

That was exactly the year David Rose used when he started this lie.

Climate is 30 year time frames. That is the international definition. Dishonestly focusing on variations and noise in the signal is dishonest. But exactly what we expect from the serial dissembler guest (and his other screen names).

HTH.

Best,

D

guest

Oh grow up, DTJ. When I said the normal time frames I was talking about which temperature data you used, not what is considered the time for Climate.

But if science says you need 30 years of data to identify a change in climate and the temperature started going up in 1980, how did we get four IPCC’s reports on climate change since all of them came before 30 years had passed?

Justclimbit

An outlier temperature year (warm) included at any point in a linear regression will affect the results and will decrease the trend slope if positioned early in that regression.

Dano2

since 1995

Evidence please.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

Starting with 1995 yields 18.5 years (it is the year 2013), a timespan which shows statistically significant warming for the BEST and NOAA land datasets and for OHC.

Tbone

Keep up the good work cherry picking your stats!

Justclimbit

All five of the most-cited datasets (and ocean heat) show increased global warming over the last 17 years. Perhaps it’s time to change your belief to better align with reality.

tomfromthenews

If everyone had Mr. Matis’s attitude, nothing would ever get done. No progress, no innovation, nothing.

guest

I agree. Perhaps I could interest you in a philosopher’s stone?

IBXNJ

How about a perpetual motion machine????

guest

Cold fusion anyone?

ChrisInDenver

“Boulder is being watched internationally as we attempt to walk the talk
of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and real smart grids”

There has, and continues to be a wide chasm between how citizens of Boulder perceive their town vs how their town is perceived. I grew up in Boulder and was guilty of it myself. Once I left and began traveling more, I realized the impression of Boulder (by those who know it exists) is of a goofy party town fun to visit….not much more. People move to Boulder, spend a few years developing their “Boulder costume” (Subaru with Tibet sticker, $5,000 carbon fiber bike, smug attitude, etc), then they move out a few years later. It is the land of conspicuous environmentalism; as long as you look fashionably eco-friendly, results don’t matter.

ThePyro

None of the stuff I’ve read on Boulder’s intent indicates whether they’re considering in their emissions reduction the University, Federal campus (NIST), quasi-Federal campus (NSF/UCAR) and other organizations not politically bound by their mandate. Knowing some of those facilities (having done work for them), they consume a rather high amount of natural gas for steam, direct-fired heat and hot water. CU’s two boiler plants and NIST’s central heat plant alone would be difficult to overcome even with currently-predicted future technologies. If they are considering it….they have their work cut out for them. If they aren’t…there’s still a lot of potential for them to be choking on carbon monoxide while standing on their pedestal.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.